A coalition of billionaires, millionaires, corporations, and hedge fund managers have decided that the best way to cure poverty is to fire teachers whose students don’t get higher test scores. This coalition–whose leaders include Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, ALEC, and others associated with corporate reform, know that it is lots cheaper to blame teachers than to do anything that will really reduce poverty.
Robert Reich may not be aware of this strategy to reduce poverty by firing teachers.
He here describes three of the “biggest right-wing lies” about poverty.
They are, first, the belief that economic growth will cure poverty. Our nation has experienced economic growth, but the benefits have enriched those at the top, not the bottom.
Second is the belief that jobs reduce poverty. Jobs are good, says Reich, but there is now a growing number of working poor because of poverty-level wages.
Third is the belief that people are poor because they lack ambition (or grit). But there is no evidence that the poor are responsible for their poverty. Reich says we are one of the few nations that under invests in schools that enroll poor children:
“America is one of only three advanced countries that spends less on the education of poorer children than richer ones, according to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
“Among the 34 O.E.C.D. nations, only in the United States, Israel and Turkey do schools serving poor neighborhoods have fewer teachers and crowd students into larger classrooms than do schools serving more privileged students. In most countries, it’s just the reverse: Poor neighborhoods get more teachers per student.”
Other nations have figured out how to reduce poverty. We have not, and our society suffers a loss of talent because of writing off so many people.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane,
I’m not so sure that the goal of current education policy is to reduce poverty. The narrative usually includes the phrase, “escape from poverty.” In this framing the goal seems more to be, “giving everyone a fair shot.” This is clearly a more limited goal. It certainly doesn’t contemplate eliminating poverty or even limiting its effects, since higher wages, real universal health care, summer and after school programs, decent housing, etc. are not on the political agenda. More on this here: http://www.arthurcamins.com/?p=269
You should add this paragraph to your blog. It clarifies an important idea. I never considered that “escape from poverty” is really a very limited goal. How do you give everyone a “fair shot” without making sure that they have access to the accoutrements of a decent life?
Poverty in the U.S. is much worse than reported due to our extremely low threshold. Conservatives twist themselves into pretzels trying to rationalize zealous adherence to a failed economic system with their cherry-picked Christian beliefs. Most of the conservative thought derives from a Just World theory. If you are poor, sick, disabled, or unemployed, they believe it is your own fault or God’s will. This lays the basis for austerity, cruelty, and greed.
We do measure poverty badly in the US. Here is a somewhat dated piece by the National Academy of Science: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4759&page=1
Here is the alternative poverty measure page for the Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/
Using the supplemental poverty measure instead of the official measure there is a slightly higher overall poverty rate of 16% vs 15%, but a lower child poverty rate of 18% vs 21.8%.
Wow, that marginally lower poverty rate completely changes my feelings about the outrageous lies that ownership class proxies like Ben Austin tell to justify policies of austerity and privatization. I mean, if I knew that *only* one-in-five children lived in poverty versus one-in-five children living in poverty, I would give up advocating for the poor and join Eli Broad in his quest to line his pockets at my community’s expense… oh, wait a minute!
What impact does the marginally higher overall poverty rate have on your thinking? That is the “much worse” point that poster MathVale was speaking about in the post.
The libertarians are the worst for vilifying and demonizing the poor. They contend that if you are poor it is your fault, you made bad decisions so tough luck. They believe that all taxes are theft and they certainly don’t want their tax money going to poor people, never mind that a high percentage of the poor are children. Libertarians, right wingers, tea partiers and too many in the GOP believe in social Darwinism and laissez-faire predatory unregulated capitalism. If you can’t compete in such a system then you deserve to be poor. It’s a hideous ideology.
These same people then have the nerve to complain that they will have to pay much more in police and prisons as the gangs offer their poverty solutions. Street gangs are truly stamped made in America, and they understand our social Darwinism and markets quite well. Libertarians, making us all equally miserable.
“Libertarians, right wingers, tea partiers and too many in the GOP believe in social Darwinism and laissez-faire predatory unregulated capitalism.”
Please quote your evidence here. Otherwise it’s just a strawman argument.
Robert Reich speaks the truth.
Joe, you speak the truth here also. Your comment is true, “It’s a hideous ideology.”
“They are, first, the belief that economic growth will cure poverty. Our nation has experienced economic growth, but the benefits have enriched those at the top, not the bottom.”
This assumes static analysis, i.e., the notion that the same people remain in the same economic position over time. It may be true that there is a growing gap between rich and poor, and that may be a bad thing. But those at the bottom today are rarely at the bottom five or ten years hence. And those at the top rarely stay there for extended periods. A select few do, but most do not. Thomas Sowell is a scholar whose writings on this subject are a must-read.
The most interesting recent work on intergenerational income mobility is this work by Chetty et al: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/mobility_geo.pdf
From my little reading of Sowell, I consider him to be a far right libertarian idiologist (purposely misspelled).
Well, that was a cogent comeback. When you have nothing to say (or, perhaps cannot understand something or someone), resort to ad hominem attacks.
Well, SCMT, since you didn’t reference any particular work by Sowell there is nothing to which to have a “cogent comeback”. From reading various of his columns over the years, I’d say that my characterization is accurate.
Now, if you had referenced a particular work such as TE did in response to you I would be able to cogently respond. Feel free to give us an example or two of his work that you find particularly cogent.
Dude…just Google “Sowell income inequality” or some such terms. Did you really need me to tell you that before resorting to a childish attack? I referred all interested to Sowell along with a pretty clear-cut topic. I doubt you are truly interested in a scholarly rebuttal to your deeply ingrained beliefs, though. My guess is that you simply seek out like-minded individuals, blogs, etc. to confirm what you already believe. In fact, while you’re Googling, try “confirmation bias” as well.
Dude, eh?!
Whenever a student (and it’s usually females who address me that way, thinking of one in particular from this past year) addresses me that way I respond: “Well dudette, you see it’s . . . .” Don’t know your gender as your nom de plume gives no hint.
When you write about the work of a given author/thinker it makes common sense and is common decency to reference his/her work that is related to the post and not make the reader “google it”. Where’s the Emily Post of the blogosphere when you need her? Oh, there’s not one-hallelujah! And how can one have a “scholarly rebuttal” to something that is not there as you have not provided any links to Sowell?
“My guess. . . ”
Well, dudette, your guess is wrong. The vast majority of my lifelong, many since grade school back in the sixties, friends are politically and fiscally conservative and liberatarian when it comes to the “social issues”. We have fun going back and forth on many issues.
Come back when you grow up girl!
I should add that if you were truly interested in one of Sowell’s arguments and didn’t know how or what to search, you would have simply asked me. Instead you chose to attack someone after admitting that you read “little” of his work.
I said “a little” not “little”-big difference in meaning. CCSS close reading for you-ha ha!
Actually educating people is a LOT cheaper than incarcerating them. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Watching C span and the “hearings” one is appalled by the partisanship and political wrangling. Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up and if one yells a lie long and loud enough people will believe it. Sadly, this is true. No matter how many times a person, especially the head of the Internal Revenue Service provides the facts, C span provides a medium for some of the politicians to expound on how they just do not believe them.
Not just in education but in so many facets of politics today. Educators have been so denigrated and castigated for so long that too many people believe the propaganda. Back a century or so educators were the leading thinkers of the community. Now they are treated like second class citizens. Do our bidding or else.
NO democratic form of government can exist for long under such a mind set.
Low IQ is the most significant risk factor for poverty in the US.
A number of questions arise. Since IQ is not static, do we have a responsibility to provide opportunities that will encourage higher IQs? Since IQ tests are culturally biased, what information do we draw from them? Since IQ is influenced by such things as poor nutrition, do we have a responsibility to try to mitigate these effects? What effect does hopelessness and depression have on IQ scores? How does chronic stress influence IQ scores? What does being a risk factor mean? Left to his own devices, I would guess that a severely disabled individual is unlikely to be able to adequately care for his/her needs. If you are implying that these individuals are disabled, what is our responsibility for their well being?
After early childhood IQ tests for individuals are fairly stable. In general a higher IQ level in a population is probably a good thing. IQ tests are not culturally biased. IQ tests designed by Western and Japanese researchers for example give essentially identical results both for the Japanese population and Western populations. Japanese and Western researchers have no significant disagreement on the relative IQ of East Asians vs. Whites. IQ tests predict academic performance about equally well for different races and ethnicities. The biggest nutritional problem in the US including the poor is obesity. Doing something about obesity in the US is highly desirable given the huge and growing prevalence of Type II diabetes. Unfortunately no easy solution to this problem is currently available. There is no evidence that IQ is much influenced by hopelessness, depression and chronic stress. Disabled means “unable to work”. According to Linda Gottfredson who has extensively studied the role of IQ in contemporary America, there is essentially no legitimate employment available to people in the US with IQ’s below 75. So in our society such people are disabled although in other cultures they might be able to find work.
I disagree that IQ tests are not culturally biased… The definition of “intelligence” itself differs between cultures, and has much to do with what a particular culture values. Most of the IQ tests I’ve dealt with include Stanford-Binet (V), and WISC (III, IV, and V). Ideally, psychometricians want to make a test as unbiased as possible, with the realization that it is not possible to make it completely free from bias. Gottfredson’s work is not without controversy; I’m more of an Robert Sternberg fan myself, and he has said a lot about the use of g over the years. Donna Ford has also written a lot about cultural bias in IQ testing. I’ve seen plenty of adults with intellectual disabilities (IQ around 70) work in sheltered workshops and do quite well at tasks that others may not have the patience to do; I’d disagree with the notion that such work is not legitimate.
Joe, do as I say not as I frequently do. Put the name of the poster to whom you are responding in your response.
Okay, that was in response to Jim’s statement.
curious about the work done by individuals of IQ 70 in sheltered workshops. Does this work require some sort of subsidy to exist? Would you agree that for most individuals in the US economy of IQ less that 75 that supporting themselves at a standard of living that society would accept is probably too much to expect?
I really don’t know, Jim. I taught in a community where IQ scores in the 70s were common. These individuals will probably find themselves relying on public services to some extent. They typically do not qualify for shelter workshop environments and are able to hold down some factory jobs and minimum wage jobs. Some of my students were capable of much more but expected to live a life little better than subsistence. I often saw performance well beyond what would be expected based on their IQ score. I believe that mindset plays a critical role in performance. That being said, I did have a few students that were clearly mentally disabled. The sad thing is that with support they were capable of holding down jobs very similar to those available to their more mentally capable peers. What does that say about the opportunities available to the more able students? I will add to that that my sweetest and most compassionate student was mentally handicapped. When he first entered my class, he was used to relying on other students to complete work. He was not used to working independently. Over the three years I had him, he grew tremendously and took ownership of his own learning to the point that it was not unusual to see other students looking at his work. They were always kind and protective of him although sometimes a little impatient. The impatience changed as they saw how much he grew. He was inspirational.
Jim, I see myself as having more in common with 2old2teach on this one. I’ve worked with individuals on both ends of the bell curve. For all the time I’ve spent reading journals and conducting research projects, there’s nothing quite like the unforgettable experiences with actual students. If I had known how much I would come to cherish those memories, I would have savored the experiences more when they occurred.
Although I mentioned my experience with IQ tests, I am by no means an advocate of these tests for anything other than (perhaps) part of a holistic set of diagnostic measures. IQ tests are definitely not without cultural biases, despite improvements that have been made to them. The history of IQ testing is “interesting” to say the least. I believe Terman’s longitudinal study of genius is still ongoing (despite his passing), but it’s been a few years since my last curiosity about it.
With regard to the work being done in the particular sheltered workshop, companies would hire the workshop to assemble various items that they needed. Hiring the workshop provided a cheaper means of production for the companies, so it was win-win. As for the subsidy question, I don’t believe they were subsidized. However, I am also aware of farm subsidies, municipal “subsidies” to professional sports teams what would otherwise have to pay for their own places of business, as well as corporate subsidies.
You asked, “Would you agree that most individuals in the US economy of IQ less that 75 that supporting themselves at a standard of living that society would accept is probably too much to expect?”
I can’t say for certain, but what’s the solution if this is the case?
IQ is 100% USDA Pure Grade AA Bullshit!
Your comment is infantile.
Well, at least it ain’t bullshit.
Dealing with reality is part of growing up.
Been dealing with reality all my life. IQ isn’t reality.
You lash out emotionally because the world is not in accordance with your egocentric fantasies.
Basta contigo otra vez.
I teach in a high poverty renew school. Education reform ideology is a joke. Many children have never had significant contact with people of different cultural backgrounds. Some students have rarely ventured outside their city. Sequestering high poverty children in low performing schools will never solve anything. When the reformers start rerouting my kids to study with their own privileged progeny, we can start to hold a real conversation.